Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,151-7,200 of 12,463

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "But, speaking of apples, is it true that there was an island off the coast of Wales with trees, apple trees, I think, that were very special to the people and the Druids? And, when the nasty, evil, horrid, and foul Romans went there and killed all of the Druids, is it true that they chopped down all of the apple trees?"

According to Druidic lore, some historical records, and some archaeological evidence ... as I understand what I've read on the topic ...

You might be referring to the island / region of Wales known as Anglesey. Romans were said to have cleared the island--or a large part of it--of Oak trees, as they were sacred to the inhabitants of the isle at the time. They were Pagan and have been considered to be proto-Druidic in the tradition that they followed. I say this because there is much discussion on when and what defines a Druid or the followers of that tradition.

There may have been apples involved .... ;)

As to "An apple a day ... " and it's origin: from Phrases.org ...

"It isn't often that I get the opportunity to list Wales as the source of a commonplace English phrase. There's a fair chance that this little maxim originated there as the earliest known example of its use in print makes that claim. The February 1866 edition of Notes and Queries magazine includes this:

"A Pembrokeshire proverb. Eat an apple on going to bed, And you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread.""

Sorry ... I'm in a researching mood as I'm also catching up on my Tumblr drafts .... lol :)

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, speaking of apples, is it true that there was an island off the coast of Wales with trees, apple trees, I think, that were very special to the people and the Druids? And, when ..."

Hey, as we all know, I'm a fan of research!

Imagine that poor island, those poor people (not the wretched and dastardly Romans) and those poor trees ...!

Perhaps I'll dress as Boudicca for Halloween!

No....

I feel someone saying ... or a tree.

If I were to dress as a tree to hand out candy (see cHriS ... I'm not always PC ... I pass tooth rotting candy out to unsuspecting children on a yearly basis ... ;) ...), I'd have flashbacks to that very sad Halloween when I was around 6.

I was going to be a princess.... Sigh.... I had a dress and cute little sparkly shoes and sparkles all over everything. But, it was super cold and my mother said I had to wear a snowsuit over my costume. A snowsuit. A princess would never get caught dead in a snowsuit. A big, puffy, blue snowsuit. My dress and shoes were pink ...... :(

My mother and I started to have words over it. I'm sure this comes as a shock, but I could be rather stubborn. I told her I was a princess and would NOT wear a snowsuit and .... I ended up hurling myself into my room and onto my bed, shedding many tears over my crushed princess dream.

My father, big and tough man, couldn't stand my mother and I arguing and crying, so .... He left. He never came back.

No, I'm teasing.

He left and came back an hour or two later. He'd gone to a store and gotten a huge box and a can of blue spray paint. He cut two holes in the box, one on each side, and a larger hole on the top. Then, he took the spray paint to it. After a bit, he came and manhandled me into my snowsuit ... me screaming and crying and pleading ... "But, I'm a princess. A princess wouldn't wear a snowsuit. I'm not going to Halloween!" Next thing I knew, after he stuffed me in my snowsuit, he put the box on me.

Yes, yes, he did.

He got my head and arms through the holes.

I stood there, tear-streaked, royal dreams having been crushed. He said, "Hold out your arms."

I think I scowled.

"Hold out your arms, Shannon," he said.

I held out my arms.

"Now you're a plane. Let's go."

At every single house ... he'd say, "Hold out your arms." Then, he'd press the bell.

People would come and say, "Oh, ummm.... Look at the little girl dressed as a ... ummmm ... box?"

"She's a plane," he'd say ....

Now you know why I'd have to be Boudicca ... and not a tree ....

Though ... the children coming for candy might be frightened if I dress as Boudicca ....

Hell....

[Robin]

@Shannon, We cut out the television, not the cable. I am aware of the contemporary shows, and I did love Oprah, for what its worth. A whole lot of channels with nothing on. We had 3 channels when I was growing up, and that seemed enough at the time. I think your HS kids are trying to see you go to an early retirement. Some of the elementary kids are so sophisticated, by the third grade, they are acting like little adults. I cringe to see where all this viewing leads us.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "I can see that, but we have to hope thats not so."

Hoping that people are not being prejudice is a very poor way to guard against it in others or even ourselves. The mass graves of the world are filled with the victims of prejudice, perhaps there would be considerably less if more people had of spoke out on their behalf, or acted to help them?

cHriS wrote: "If it were true, I would have to ask, what are the reasons for succumbing to prejudice."

Good question. The answers seem to be fear, disgust, tribalism and control. Fear because the thing that people tend to fear the most are things that are unknown. People are a lot more scared of radiation than it's actual dangers because they can't see it, sense it or in fact in most cases understand it. They tend to be afraid of differences too, other races because they look different, other nations because they act different, other genders because their cultural and biological attributes are different and sexuality because people find it hard to understand other people's point of view on attractiveness.

Disgust then comes in as a powerful emotion that obviously evolved to keep us from trying 'risky' practices like eating rotten meat etc. However, disgust is an emotion that is very fickle. Ask people who have moved to a different country and adopted a radically different cuisine. Disgust effects us powerfully, yet it is under our ability to control and alter if we have the self awareness.

Both of these factors lead to tribalism, where like minded people align and form a 'them and us' mentality which is fairly natural for us as social creatures, yet can be highly damaging to others outside of the 'tribe', especially those that find themselves pariah's within a larger group.

This works both ways of course, as smaller tribes band together out of fear of the majority, while the majority come to be suspicious and fearful of a unified minority. This is what we see time and time again around the world, often linked to religious divisions. Whether it's Jews in Europe, Christians in Islamic lands, Muslims in India, etc.

All this gives us the last factor. Control. The prejudices of people can be wielded by others effectively to assert control over the 'tribe', by catering to their fears and prejudices and increasing their fear and disgust of others to further silence dissent within the tribe by uniting against a common "enemy". Whether that enemy is "Mos-lem jihadists", the "Zionist Conspiracy" or the "Homosexual Agenda".

Look with an analytical eye at the world now and you will see this control being wielded and strengthened. Look at the uproar caused in Muslim lands by a lame youtube video, a legitimate reaction or a clearly engineered one to invigorate militant Islam against the west? Look at the furore over gay marriage, many politicians have conceded the need for 'civil unions' but they are fighting to keep the term 'marriage' separate, even if it's indistinguishable. Why? Because the two terms will keep a perceived hierarchy of social acceptability between the unions.

In the end it is nothing to do with "Political Correctness" as that is primarily a derogatory term to combat the eroding of tribalism, by trying to imply that being anti-prejudice is just another form of tribalism rather than a conscious decision to try to be aware of it and transcend it.

I hope that addresses your questions.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: I hope that addresses your questions.

..."

It does address the questions well and it also generates more questions. I agree with most of what you say up to a point, but……….

The UK has followed Spain, Italy and other countries to move from a lifetime ban to a one year ban. Maybe sometime soon they will lift the ban. I would hope that fear, disgust and tribalism is not the main reason, if it is a reason at all, for keeping a year ban. I, as somebody who is not on one side or the other of the debate about lifting the ban, (as long as safety is put first); have to put my trust in the authorities to do what it best for those receiving the blood, above those giving the blood. And I trust that if they are being over cautious for every one receiving blood, at the detriment of a section of gay men, that those men will understand and not think that there is any underline reason for the ban.

Tribalism, I don’t think that is very easy to define any more. Yes you could suggest a ‘them and us’ regarding the blood thing, but I don’t think that there are enough of ‘us’ to warrant that analogy. If you used the ‘them’ in this analogy as the gay men and ‘us’ as the rest of society, you would be assuming that all the ‘us’ are against gay men, and that is just not true. Most of the so called ‘us’ don’t even bother to take sides, in general we just except things as they are, unless there is a conflict of opinion on one single issue.

You put a group of people in a room, half are black half white. Half are gay half are not, half male half female and half support Manchester and half support Chelsea. This could be a good recipe for ‘tribalism, ’ but what would be the dividing issue? Would it depend on how many tribes could made from that combination? Or would it just be what is the issue at any given time?

Look with an analytical eye at the world now and you will see this control being wielded and strengthened. Look at the uproar caused in Muslim lands by a lame youtube video, a legitimate reaction or a clearly engineered one to invigorate militant Islam against the west? Look at the furore over gay marriage, many politicians have conceded the need for 'civil unions' but they are fighting to keep the term 'marriage' separate, even if it's indistinguishable. Why? Because the two terms will keep a perceived hierarchy of social acceptability between the unions.

But there is a reason for this. The furore over gay marriage; there are two sides to this and both have their merits. The uproar caused in Muslim lands by a lame you tube video; it is not because one side is right and one side is wrong, there are two separate ways of looking at that situation.

Hierarchy. Why do we have to put one side of a conflict above the other side. Maybe they both have equal status and somehow a compromise should be reached.

Maybe our tribal instincts are stronger then we know and we do not like compromise, maybe we have to ‘fight our own corner’ as I’ve said here before, to the shock horror of others.

In the end it is nothing to do with "Political Correctness.
To me Pc is when someone/somebody…………… is it easier to give an example…..

I am Christian, of sorts and I like Christmas. I like the religious bit and the Santa bit. When those in charge, in my town, think it’s best not to put up a Christmas tree, not to have carol singers or a Santa and to keep anything to do with Christmas to a minimum in case it offends the Asian community…. that’s Political Correctness at it worst.

The Asian people I know like Christmas, they know who Jesus is and they believe in Santa, at least for their kids. So why don’t we enjoy Christmas in our town and also enjoy the other religious festivals as well, even think of a festival the atheists can enjoy?

Compromise.

[PaulWADE]

I am assuming the choice is for no religion, or no science. As I am assuming this, I shall also assume that we are talking about "THIS" human race. Ours.
Seriously, as much as I would enjoy to not watch the mayhem religion(s) causes around the world, I have to ask, how long would it be before one aspect of science would be approved by some people and not the others. All of a sudden we are back where we were.
"Which end of the boiled egg should be opened at breakfast time. The sharp end, or the other end?"..
Welcome to the world of people... Who frankly, cant agree on the colour of grass......

[Maria]

Christmas is based on a pagan holiday anyway so if the city or county refuses to put up a tree, it's not just the Asians they are making happy, it's god as well, right? Why would god want pagan decorations put up supposedly in his or his son's name?

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "And I trust that if they are being over cautious for every one receiving blood, at the detriment of a section of gay men, that those men will understand and not think that there is any underline reason for the ban."

As discussed elsewhere, the reason why some people (not just gay men) feel that it may be based on prejudice is that the reasoning doesn't add up. Even the document you linked understands that some people will take offence, and perhaps they are right to. The fact is that they are being targeted because it is easier to ask the question of the minority and not of the majority.

I would hope that the authorities try to minimise risk, but when they openly say that they are willing to ask one group personal questions and ban them while not asking the majority at all then that would seem less safe.

What is worse is that this bias will undoubtably feed back on public perception. When people hear that gay men are banned from giving blood due to the risks, they will then be inclined to believe that gay men are inherently more infectious and even unhygienic, distinctly out of proportion with the actual facts. Just as gay men have been labelled for a long time with being uniformly promiscuous.

cHriS wrote: "Tribalism, I don’t think that is very easy to define any more. Yes you could suggest a ‘them and us’ regarding the blood thing, but I don’t think that there are enough of ‘us’ to warrant that analogy."

I think it is more prevalent than you recognise, mainly because the boundaries have changed but the tribalism remains all the stronger. Except now instead of WASPs, Catholics, Working Class etc, now we have "Sun readers", "daily mail readers", "guardian readers" etc. (though that may itself be an anachronistic definition by now). Tribalism is going strong but some allegiances are strong and some are of convenience. Divisions still exist but when Anglicans and Catholics are not being suspicious of each other (and their footy teams) they are being suspicious of the Muslims, yet then the Muslims, Catholics and Anglicans will all unite to be suspicious of the homosexual. Meanwhile the middle class revile the unwashed leeches of the lower class, the lower class hate and resent a system with little opportunity and little reward for achievement, and both hate and love the upper class of celebrities that they both decry for their immorality while loving the titillation.

You only have to look at the headlines each morning to see both Tribalism and the attempts to use tribalism to control people. The irony of the manufactured outrage about gay activists threatening religious freedom, when that supposed freedom is the right to deny others the freedom of their version of religion.

cHriS wrote: "You put a group of people in a room, half are black half white. Half are gay half are not, half male half female and half support Manchester and half support Chelsea. This could be a good recipe for ‘tribalism, ’ but what would be the dividing issue? Would it depend on how many tribes could made from that combination? Or would it just be what is the issue at any given time?"

Exactly. First you'd have to know why they are all in the same room, and what the context of their situation is. This happens all the time though, where workplaces have mixtures of people of different background. In these situations it is very common for tribalism to occur creating pariahs of one of the smaller groups.

cHriS wrote: "But there is a reason for this. The furore over gay marriage; there are two sides to this and both have their merits."

I have yet to hear a convincing merit from the anti-gay marriage.

The reasons I am aware of;

1. "Homosexuality is a sin/is unnatural". Well the first is a religious viewpoint and therefore only counts if you place religion above freedom. The second is provably wrong.
2. "Marriage goes with family, something which gay people cannot/should not have." Independent studies show that homosexual couples are just as good, if not better, parents than the average heterosexual couple (as to adopt they need to make an active decision to have kids), and by this definition people who are not fertile (or do not intend to have children) should also be denied marriage. Plus adoption of existing orphans is surely better than life in social care?
3. "Redefining marriage would be changing an ages old tradition". First the irony of the Anglican Church saying this (a church fundamentally based on a redefinition of marriage). Second, it is a centuries old tradition that in marriage the woman submitted to the man and was almost literally his property, something most churches have quietly and wisely dropped (at least in appearance, though I have met many clergymen who hold those views of female submission close to their hearts).
4. "It is an attack on freedom of religion". Only if you force religions to conduct ceremonies for gay couples. Some religions would be fine with it, so it is actually an attack on freedom of religion (and freedom from a particular religion) to deny it.

Have I missed any reasoning cited by the anti-gay marriage lobby?

cHriS wrote: "The uproar caused in Muslim lands by a lame you tube video; it is not because one side is right and one side is wrong, there are two separate ways of looking at that situation."

Really? People were killed over a movie that was apparently worse than "Battlefield Earth". It seems both sides got what they wanted, which was in effect further reasons to hate each other, and therefore gain more control of their fellows by presenting them with their 'great enemy'. (Whether it was a****** evangelists on one side hoping to provoke fear of Muslims, or a****** fundamentalists on the Muslim side hoping to stir up a healthy dose of hatred for the west).

What I found heartening was the few rare clips that our media actually showed with Muslims protesting the violence, and showing signs of regret for the murder and attacks and calling shame on those who orchestrated it. Unfortunately, they were either very few, or (more likely) they did not make a punchy story for the western press.

cHriS wrote: "Hierarchy. Why do we have to put one side of a conflict above the other side. Maybe they both have equal status and somehow a compromise should be reached."

I agree, sometimes it's possible, but sometimes there is no position of compromise that one side or the other can recognise, and sometimes one side is simply wrong.

In my eyes a reasonable compromise is "I won't tell you who you can marry and you do the same for me". I can easily imagine a world were a bigoted homosexual majority told me that I could only marry a man. I am not attracted to men, I like women, but in this world I am constantly told that my feelings are wrong and evil, and eventually if my feelings for a girl are recognised then any union I could make would be strictly a second class union to make sure people understood the difference between a 'real' marriage and what we had.

"Do unto others"

Let people marry who they fall in love with. It is hard to see how people can demand compromise over this.

cHriS wrote: "Maybe our tribal instincts are stronger then we know and we do not like compromise, maybe we have to ‘fight our own corner’ as I’ve said here before, to the shock horror of others."

They are indeed, and few people recognise compromise, let alone like it. Just like above, what will happen to straight people if gay marriage becomes legal?

Nothing.

(Except perhaps they can attend the weddings of their gay friends.)

cHriS wrote: "I am Christian, of sorts and I like Christmas. I like the religious bit and the Santa bit. When those in charge, in my town, think it’s best not to put up a Christmas tree, not to have carol singers or a Santa and to keep anything to do with Christmas to a minimum in case it offends the Asian community…. that’s Political Correctness at it worst."

That's all fine, but what happens when (as it often does) it goes beyond celebration? Even I get annoyed with people yelling at me in the streets that I am "sinful", or that "Jesus is the reason for this celebration". I do not mind religious festivals, decorations, etc. be it Christmas, Eid, Diwali etc. until they are used for posturing or preaching.

cHriS wrote: "The Asian people I know like Christmas, they know who Jesus is and they believe in Santa, at least for their kids. So why don’t we enjoy Christmas in our town and also enjoy the other religious festivals as well, even think of a festival the atheists can enjoy?"

I think the atheists are in the unique position to enjoy most of the festivals. The problem again is "tribalism". When the festival turns from a time of celebration, to a time of pursuing an agenda, defining a tribe and drawing a line that says "this is our festival not yours".

cHriS wrote: "Compromise."

Which is why I compromise and enjoy the traditions of several culture's winter festivals while doing my best to ignore, and perhaps forgive, those that try to use it to impose their beliefs on me and my family.

[Maria]

"Have I missed any reasoning cited by the anti-gay marriage lobby?"

I've heard this one: god put 2 humans in the garden of eden - adam and eve. Not adam and steve. He didn't give adam the choice of wanting a male partner - i.e did not put both a male and a female in front of him and say, ok, you mate with whichever one you are attracted to.....if he picked Steve, how would they fill the earth and subdue it? Nobody to adopt yet.

Point taken - but it assumes belief in adam and eve, and belief in the bible, etc - using it as an argument to someone who doesn't have that belief is moot.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "have to put my trust in the authorities to do what it best for those receiving the blood, above those giving the blood. And I trust that if they are being over cautious for every one receiving blood, at the detriment of a section of gay men, that those men will understand and not think that there is any underline reason for the ban. "

Hey, cHriS ....

I'm only going to speak for myself and the arguments I've made. Looking at the first part of the above statement leads me to believe you don't understand my argument.

I'm not advocating that we put the rights of donors about the rights of patients. In fact, when you raised this idea before, I tried to very clearly state my point was not to argue for gay rights. My point was to argue for safe blood.

I have a question that I'd really like you to answer. I'd like an answer because .... I've tried to be very clear with my argument. If I haven't been, I'd like to know how or why I've not been clear.

My question, given the argument I've made .... Why do you continue to say this is about the safety of patients and not the right of donors ... or allude to that?

I'm going to try one more time. I'm going to write it here so you don't need to go back. Please tell me how the words I'm about to use will equate to ... putting rights of donors above patients. I'd really appreciate it.

1) When C brought this up, I couldn't believe it. I'd never heard it before and could not believe it could be true. Well, sadly I could, but I didn't really want to believe it.

2) My brain went immediately to the safety of the blood supply. That's where my mind went, ASAP. It went there because of what I'd heard and read, years ago, about needing to be tested for HIV at 6 months and 12 months out ... to be sure. Given that, I've always questioned the safety of the blood supply, even going so far as to refuse a blood transfusion.

3) If the government or doctors or ... whoever ... won't let gay men donate (due to risk ... anal sex and tearing) and the 6 month/12 month testing windows, the blood supply isn't likely as safe as people have led us to believe.

4) If two and three are true, shouldn't there be a focus on and policies dealing with the BEHAVIOR not a group. There are plenty of heterosexuals, men and women, who partake in that act. Further, there are a bagillion heterosexuals who don't practice safe sex, regardless of the avenue. Shouldn't we, really and truly, focus on that. If we want a safe blood supply ....

5) If two, three and four are true, we're placing patients in danger by refusing to deal with the problem at hand ... anyone and everyone who might have unsafe sex, in general, and who might have anal sex.

6) Then, my brain went to .... Huh? Or .... What are my other options? Oh, yes. Perhaps two, three and four aren't true. If they're not true, why would gay men be disallowed? Hmmmm.... I'm thinking bigotry.

Now, another option has been discussed. I believe you've discussed it. Gary might have. That idea is .... We need blood. If we disallow more people or ask people questions about their sexual practices, we might lose donors. We can't lose donors! So, .... (This is me and where my mind goes. I don't know that you phrased it this way....) So, better to risk the few people who might get HIV from heterosexuals who aren't safe than to risk the population at large ... by ticking off or embarrassing donors.

I suppose, if you wanted to argue that particular point, you'd be able to do so. I'd disagree with you. I'm of the "Suck it up, Buttercup" mentality ... if you're mature enough to do with, be mature enough to answer the darned question. I mean, seriously. It's just a question.

But, if you wanted to say the government is doing what it's doing just due to safety ... the safety of society at large ... heaven forbid we ask a "housewife" if she uses condoms or has had anal sex, I'd get it. Sort of. It comes down, in this instance, to how we define safety. I, personally, am not one to feel some people are expendable.

(By that, I don't mean I don't want to hurt the feelings of gay men. I mean, .... If this is the idea behind not focusing on BEHAVIOR, we're willingly deciding to place a small number of people at risk (those who might receive HIV tainted blood) in order to save the populous at large ... having enough blood for everyone. I, personally, am not okay with that. Further, if that's the way of it, in my mind, people should be honest about it.)

That's not what you did just know, though. You took it back to the rights of patients or the rights of donors ... and the idea that we shouldn't risk patients for gay rights.

So, again, I wonder if you've "heard" my argument.

It's really and truly not about gay rights. It's about the safety of the blood supply ... something you have said is of paramount importance.

However, if this decision is being made based on bigotry, at that point, HECK YA, it would become an issue of gay rights. At that point, it sure as heck would become that. For me, at least .... But ... only at that time. Because, frankly, I'm pretty sure it has a lot more to do with offending "housewives" than anything else, and that leaves us open to risk.

If, after reading this, you still think my purpose in arguing this point is to put the rights of gay men over the rights of patients, please tell me how you came to that conclusion. What, in my logic and words, leads you to that conclusion.

Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "What is worse is that this bias will undoubtably feed back on public perception. When people hear that gay men are banned from giving blood due to the risks, they will then be inclined to believe that gay men are inherently more infectious and even unhygienic, distinctly out of proportion with the actual facts. Just as gay men have been labelled for a long time with being uniformly promiscuous.
"

Thank you, Gary. I agree with the above statement 100%. I didn't think to even go there. But, I believe you're right. I just want to shake my head.

[Owen]

Rain wrote: "i think science is a bit limited seeing as it tends to want to give a reason for everything,not everything has a clear reason.like why of all people did i have to be the one to get bitten by that d..."

This is a good place to start http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources...

[Gryph]

Maria wrote: "I've heard this one: god put 2 humans in the garden of eden - adam and eve. Not adam and steve. He didn't give adam the choice of wanting a male partner - i.e did not put both a male and a female in front of him and say, ok, you mate with whichever one you are attracted to.....if he picked Steve, how would they fill the earth and subdue it? Nobody to adopt yet."

Greetings Maria,

I've also heard this bit of "wisdom" ... generally from Westboro type extreme wackos attempting to justify their hatred.

I've always had problems with that argument though on a logical basis ...

1) Either Adam and Eve's remaining children engaged in incest in their effort to "be fruitful and multiply"

or

2) Adam and Eve were not the only "humans" as evidenced by the "Sons of Adam" marrying the "Daughters of Man". Some biblical interpretations and scholars attribute these daughters to Lilith others to the descendants of Cain after he was evicted from Eden.

The result, for me, is that this "history" of events seems to say that same-sex attraction--between humans--is wrong, but incest is just fine. Ummm .... no.

[Gryph]

Owen wrote: "This is a good place to start http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources... "

Greetings Owen,

I found the link you provided most informative. My one minor quibble is the use of "often" as a qualifier--specifically in the "Indications" section. I was first introduced to this theory during my university studies so I am at least familiar with the underlying principles ... scientific observation is often a game of "on average" rather than absolutes.

My question for you is this ....

(I'm making several assumptions, as I understand them, that are agreed on to varying levels within Science ....)

"Mind" and "Brain" are two distinct entities; the first is a .... repository / construct while the second is a complex biological structure. Behaviour is influenced by both Mind and Brain, in addition to other aspects; the cognitive process of Mind and the genetic / biological determinants of Brain both have some effect.

If this is so, we can agree that genetics has an effect on the manner in which connections in the Brain are made--synaptic transmission, neurotransmitters, basic data storage, etc. If that is the case, does genetics play into the influence of Mind on behaviour? If so, how?

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "I've heard this one: god put 2 humans in the garden of eden - adam and eve. Not adam and steve. He didn't give adam the choice of wanting a male partner - i.e did not put both a male and a female in front of him and say, ok, you mate with whichever one you are attracted to.....if he picked Steve, how would they fill the earth and subdue it? Nobody to adopt yet."

I thought I covered that in point 1. (Homosexuality is a sin/unnatural). :-)

Moreover, it is then undermined by logical application of supposed Christian principles (i.e. the ones contemporary Christians claim, not necessarily biblical scripture or church dogma).

According to Christian's "God is Love", yet they abhor this form of love calling it 'lust'. Yet that applies for 'fornicators' too, who lust after the opposite sex. The proof for Christian's in general of love instead of lust is marriage, therefore Christian's should be protesting for gay marriage so that gay people can prove before their God that they love each other, not just lust after each other, showing commitment, care and mutual respect.

You cannot have "God is Love" and then say "except for that bit".

Oh and the following cheap & nasty shot by the likes of a**** like Santorum, committing the slippery slope fallacy http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slipp... of "it will lead to the legitimisation of bestiality or paedophilia, well there is a big difference between two consenting adults choosing to marry, and an adult marrying someone or something not regarded as being capable/responsible enough to give informed consent.

(Ironically enough I can see why someone like Santorum would feel this way, because he also holds some fairly sexist ideas. If you believe that one party in the marriage, i.e. the woman, must submit to the other then the issue of mutual consent for marriage does get somewhat lost. This also explains why other a****** like Bachmann compare gay marriage to slavery, because in their mind one partner must submit to the others authority, and if both partners are male then that 'means' that one male must submit to the other placing them in an 'unnatural/ungodly' servitude to the other. Like a lot of these things, I do not dislike them because I don't understand them, I dislike them because I think I understand all too well).

Final point of course is that evidence shows that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, and in humans, and that sex in apes (and humans in particular) is a lot more than simple reproduction. Studies suggest that sex is an important form of bonding between a couple beyond simple production of progeny, and a healthy sex life between a monogamous couple is important to the stability of that relationship. Since that relationship forms the base block of society (according to Christians), then more sex between couples should be encouraged. Yet the Catholic church and other Christian groups decry any sex that does not have the chance of reproduction, even when the couple may not want to risk the expense of another child, want to add to an already overpopulated world or even risk contracting a lethal disease from their partner.

So because Christian dogma is based on a simplistic understanding of the complexities of human sexuality, this Christian dogma (not all Christians of course) directly conflicts with the stated Christian goal of a loving society built from stable families.

Maria wrote: "Point taken - but it assumes belief in adam and eve, and belief in the bible, etc - using it as an argument to someone who doesn't have that belief is moot. "

Aye, :-) yet somehow it's an "attack on religion" to suggest that people who do not want to be subject to a stricture of another religion must allow that religion to impose their views on them.

This is the same whether its a Church complaining about gay marriage, or a Catholic institution paying its dues which may be spent on contraception for its non-catholic employees. It is an attack on freedom of religion to allow these employers to dictate to non-catholic employees how their money is spent.

In short if a Church does not want to perform gay marriage ceremonies, then don't. If you do not want to be in a gay marriage, then do not marry a gay person of your gender. Apart from that, give people the freedom to choose who they want to marry, and then show them the respect that the commitment they have made to each other is due.

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "The result, for me, is that this "history" of events seems to say that same-sex attraction--between humans--is wrong, but incest is just fine. Ummm .... no."

Not to mention that Eve was apparently cloned from Adam which makes that the ultimate form of incest, or the most exotic form of masturbation ever...

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "[various interesting things about Santorum, Bachman and gay marriage v. Christian 'morality']"

Greetings Gary,

I guess this post answers my question as to whether you'd be insulted by my use of "Repugnican" to differentiate the new conservative movement in the U.S. :)

As this is a convo between yourself and Maria, I'll wait to give any input unless I'm specifically asked to ... lol.

[Amulya]

According to me religion and science are interdependent one needs another to exist. Religion is faith, Science is proof.
Before one pursues evidence in science, to prove something, it begins with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is true. That assumption is nothing but faith you have in yourself, you have in science.
Even religion needs science to keep a check on itself, to free itself when human beings try to take advantage of it.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "Not to mention that Eve was apparently cloned from Adam which makes that the ultimate form of incest, or the most exotic form of masturbation ever... "

Greetings Gary,

I have a whole host of problems with the creation myth as believed by Abrahamic traditions .... a whole host.

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "I guess this post answers my question as to whether you'd be insulted by my use of "Repugnican" to differentiate the new conservative movement in the U.S. :)"

Aye, not only on bigotry grounds, but also on the hypocrisy of their moral claims versus moral choices and also on certain aspects of their economic hypotheses that do not stand up to casual scrutiny. :-)

C-Cose wrote: "As this is a convo between yourself and Maria, I'll wait to give any input unless I'm specifically asked to ... lol."

In my opinion, this is a public forum, so if I wanted a private conversation I would move to private messages. So unless Maria feels markedly different...

Thank you though for the inherent respect of that point, though I am mainly saying this because I was just about to insert comments into one of your responses to someone else that interested me. :-D

[Gary]

Amulya wrote: "Science is proof.
Before one pursues evidence in science, to prove something, it begins with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is true. That assumption is nothing but faith you have in yourself, you have in science."

Sorry, Amulya, I would have to disagree. One of the starting points of any scientific hypotheses is to do the exact opposite of what you said. You hypothesise a reason, and then you question it, interrogate it, test it, i.e. do everything else but believe in it. Once you have gathered enough proof to satisfy yourself, then you release a paper or similar for independent corroboration and testing.

In this context believing at any point in the hypothesis is actually detrimental to the process (though obviously as humans it is hard not to slip on that path). The scientific process is all about minimising, not utilising, unfounded belief.

Without that single lynch-pin your hypothesis that they are interdependent loses its 'evidence'.

[Amulya]

Gary wrote: "You hypothesise a reason, and then you question it, interrogate it, test it, i.e. do everything else but believe in it. Once you have gathered enough proof to satisfy yourself, then you release a paper or similar for independent corroboration and testing."

Yes, when you hypothesize something you go about all the things you mentioned. But, they are part of the process of searching for proof. That process of searching for proof in itself stems from the faith or belief--however small--that exists somewhere in the corner of your mind. That faith has first of all motivated and led you to pursue for empirical evidence for your hypothesis.

In that process, if you do not find proof, you go about your business. But, failure to find that proof for your hypothesis doesn't mean that you did not have faith initially when you began your search for proof.

[Gryph]

Amulya wrote: "But, failure to find that proof for your hypothesis doesn't mean that you did not have faith initially when you began your search for proof. ."

Greetings Amulya,

I'm not sure whether I'm having difficulty with your premise because of the words you use or because I may disagree with it ....

For myself, as someone not in the camp of Science or Religion, a hypothesis always begins with, "Why?". In those cases where I'm searching for some "proof", I'm doing so because I'm interested in the phenomenon that I'm investigating and interested in the results. Any "faith" that I have in any result is moot as I'm uncertain as to what the result may be.

For example .... the sky is blue. Most would agree that to be the case, but some experience it as a different colour--due to how their optical receptors and brain are connected. And on some occasions the sky is not blue. There is no "faith", for me, in asking why the sky is blue sometimes when sometimes it is not.

I have to ask myself if you're equating one's understanding of how things are with a faith that they are and will always be so.

[Gary]

Amulya wrote: "That process of searching for proof in itself stems from the faith or belief--however small--that exists somewhere in the corner of your mind. That faith has first of all motivated and led you to pursue for empirical evidence for your hypothesis."

And here C-Cose is the reason I define belief more narrowly, because in Amulya's thesis they have equated what we would term "belief" with what I would term "opinion".

Sorry for the aside Amulya, but this point has come up before.

First on "belief". What do you mean by the word? For example, you may "believe" that because I am writing in English on the internet, that I am American (based on statistical chance), if you then paid attention to my spelling you may modify that belief to being from the UK, if you check some of my colloquialisms you may end up believing I hail from Scotland. Some of those may be true, some false, but if I told you which one, then you would probably believe that unless you had reason to suspect I was misleading you.

However in all the above "belief" you could hardly call it religious. You would change that belief quickly and freely based on evidence, and would probably not be particularly surprised if what you believed was false.

Compare and contrast to religious belief, were a hypothesis is held to be true, in absence of or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

In the first instance I would not use the term "belief" I would use the term "opinion", "idea", "hypothesis" but the word 'belief' in that context cannot be equated to belief in a religious context.


Second.

Amulya wrote: "In that process, if you do not find proof, you go about your business. But, failure to find that proof for your hypothesis doesn't mean that you did not have faith initially when you began your search for proof."

Again, not true if you examine the history of science. Faith and belief in the context you are using it refer to a conviction that something is right. Now compare with the discovery of the Neutrino. The initial hypothesis came from a discrepancy in the equations that governed the weak nuclear force. The theorists had balanced the mass/energy, charge and spin numbers of the reaction, but the momentum kept coming out wrong. In the end the theorists hypothesised the existence of a particle that had little or no mass/energy, no charge and no spin, but could carry enough momentum away to balance the equation. In fact the scientists involved never really 'believed' the particle existed, they just kept it as a 'place holder' until future theories/experiments explained what the discrepancy was.

As it turns out the neutrino was not only discovered, but it has now been realised to be the most important particle involved in Supernova explosions, enabling those explosions to seed the universe with the necessary elements that make up the majority of our bodies.

So that is practically the opposite of the process you describe. Acceptance of the existence of the particle came a long time after it was suggested, not before.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "And here C-Cose is the reason I define belief more narrowly, because in Amulya's thesis they have equated what we would term "belief" with what I would term "opinion"."

As do I now Gary--in part as a result of our last discussion. In my case, I've been making a conscious effort to use "understanding" or "opinion" depending on the circumstances.

I don't understand Repugnicans or their view on life ... but I certainly do have an opinion--several of them--on them *eg* :)

[Rox]

Religion and Science are both important in today's society. So I will not choose as I believe that they can co-exist as long as both parties would stopped from looking a fault from each other.

[Gary]

Sorry C this is where I wanted to jump in :-) it has a lot to do with much earlier comments I made on the nature of soul.

C-Cose wrote: ""Mind" and "Brain" are two distinct entities; the first is a .... repository / construct while the second is a complex biological structure. Behaviour is influenced by both Mind and Brain, in addition to other aspects; the cognitive process of Mind and the genetic / biological determinants of Brain both have some effect."

To put it simply "brain" is the label we give to a physical formation of neural tissues and blood vessels within the skull, or more correctly it's a region. The brain contains various elements that are complicity connected to the rest of the organism and in fact the definition of what is "brain matter" and where it ends is more a matter of choice or convenience than a definite description. (This may seem a strange point but bear with me).

Mind is a label for the cognitive process of what we define as a single individual. Importantly not a label for an entity of any form, but of a process that forms engage in. In humans the mind is generally held to be seated in the brain, but in reality this is just the nexus of a complicated process that extends throughout the body (in the form of organs, hormones, blood oxygen, sugar and contaminate levels) and also can be said to extend to a complicit relationship with it's environment and other minds via a battery of senses.

Again, the mind is a label, and just like the label for the brain (in fact more so) the label is for a process and where that process is said to have borders is more of a choice than a defined fact. Certainly the 'human' mind requires a brain, but the process is effected, often deeply, by regions outside the brain, so therefore are part of or are complicit with that process. (Literally thinking with your ****) Adrenalin glands, autonomic reactions to non-autonomic stimuli etc. etc. The mind effects the body and the body effects the mind.

It gets even more complicated when you realise that the label "mind" can be zoomed in or out. Several neuropsychological models treat a person as a complicit arrangement of minds (similar to but not necessarily the same as ideas of 'Id', 'Ego' etc.) Indeed biologically we have an almost completely discreet mind for the autonomic nervous system, and there does seem to be either subconscious or preconscious mind that presents our "conscious" mind with memories, ideas and stimuli that can be bias without conscious awareness. Similarly the concept of mind can be scaled up to where a person is an individual within a hive mind of varying degrees. Indeed recent data indicates that a properly organised 'mind' is functionally far more intelligent and precise than its components (yet in some circumstances can be extremely poor cognitively).

Of course this isn't either/or this is again a complicit and complex arrangement of minds within minds, just as our societies are formed of co-operating multicellular organisms formed of co-operating cellular organisms which are formed of co-operating organelles within them.

C-Cose wrote: "If this is so, we can agree that genetics has an effect on the manner in which connections in the Brain are made--synaptic transmission, neurotransmitters, basic data storage, etc. If that is the case, does genetics play into the influence of Mind on behaviour? If so, how? "

From the above this means that not only does genetics have an influence on mind in behaviour in a strictly biological sense, but genetics, epigenetics and even memetics all influence our behaviour, just as our behaviour will eventually effect our genetics.

All this beautiful complexity and dizzying possibilities and interactions, working simultaneously and complicity on many levels, showing both how significant and how small we all are, is why simplistic ideas like a ghostly independent "soul" hitching a ride in a fleshy vehicle leave me somewhat cold.

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "Sorry C this is where I wanted to jump in :-) it has a lot to do with much earlier comments I made on the nature of soul."

No worries Gary ... I had an inkling that you'd have some input on this .... possibly even a prescient moment LOL :D

It would appear that we have a similar understanding of Mind / Brain interconnectedness. I'm half tempted to upload--and provide a link to--an undergraduate proto-thesis on the nature of "Consciousness" that I did in a course in Cognitive Behaviour. In it, I posit a (possibly)* measurable effect of pre- and sub-conscious elements on our behaviour and cognitive processes.

*Possibly, because the further experiment that I proposed was to have become my undergraduate honors thesis. Ultimately, I was unable to continue my university studies.

As to the existence and nature of "soul", I can only say that that is one of my core beliefs which I have no evidence to support. I do, however, contemplate its nature on a daily basis even though my understanding of my own is still quite limited after 47 years :)

[Gryph]

Emma wrote: "But that would lead onto more philosophical questions like 'Is war necessary for the world to grow?' and 'Could a world be possible without war?'... "

Greetings Emma :)

To answer your questions .... War is not necessary for the world to grow and it could exist just fine without it.

While I agree that conflict is inherent in advancing the human condition, war is not the only solution ... nor is it often the best one.

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "Without religion we would not have the beautiful art it goes hand in hand with. You only need to glance at the sistine chapel or the aboriginee art in australia to see how religion can inspire people."

Would we really be starved of inspiration without superstition and belief, or would we find our inspiration elsewhere, perhaps in the beauty of nature and even mathematics where the classical age and indeed DaVinci drew so much inspiration? Is it impossible for an atheist to appreciate beauty or do art without having a belief in something or other?

Again it is a commonly cited "benefit" of religion, but I strongly doubt our imaginations would be deficit without it. People can write wonderful stories about fairies, orcs and aliens without actually believing they exist.

[Gary]

C-Cose wrote: "As the existence and nature of "soul", I can only say that that is one of my core beliefs which I have no evidence to support. I do, however, contemplate its nature on a daily basis even though my understanding of my own is still quite limited after 47 years :) "

Well obviously there is little more I can say at that juncture, but personally I find the concept of 'soul' as somewhat intellectually limiting, so I am sure you can understand why I will argue against the concept when someone uses the assumption of it's existence as part of their hypothesis? :-)

[Gryph]

Gary wrote: "Well obviously there is little more I can say at that juncture, but personally I find the concept of 'soul' as somewhat intellectually limiting, so I am sure you can understand why I will argue against the concept when someone uses the assumption of it's existence as part of their hypothesis? :-) "

Absolutely Gary :)

That's one of the reasons why I rarely engage in a discussion about it as I have no evidence to support its existence, yet contemplating it occupies much of my time.

I just wish the same could be said for "Honey Boo Boo" and the "Real Housewives" .... *eg* :D

[Gryph]

Emma wrote: "It is shocking in a way that humans in my lifetime, are arguably the most intelligent they have ever been (Stephen Hawkins a fine example) yet war seems to be more rife than ever. You would think people would learn from their mistakes."

Greetings Emma :)

Events in my lifetime have only served to confirm my conviction that wars are geared to--and in many cases forwarded by--the lowest common denominator of "intelligence". It's just further evidence that nobody with a room temperature IQ should be in a position of leadership.

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "war is unavoidable in a world with people who warmonger."

If wars only came down to "warmongers" how many would there really be? To have a war you not only need leaders who want to go to war, they need some kind of mandate from their population to support the war, or that leader is likely not going to maintain control.

So warmongers are not really the problem, the problem is the ideological grounds that 'warmongers' use to justify the war to their population, be it economic, political or religious ideology. One thing unites all these ideologies, that is the fact that they are usually built on belief. Belief in capitalism over socialism, belief in democracy instead of despotism, belief in the righteousness of your god.

Emma wrote: "It is inevitable as people are unable to accept others beliefs for some reason."

That is because many beliefs are mutually exclusive, and that beliefs also inform attitudes and actions, particularly against those who do not share their beliefs.

Does everyone accept the belief that homosexuals need to be killed because God will punish those who endure their presence, does everyone accept the belief that Jews should be killed to avoid them infecting the gene pool, does everyone accept the belief that the poor and destitute should be left to starve by the rest of society?

Beliefs are not innocent little quirks, they are things that can cause wars and claim the lives of others.

Emma wrote: "It is shocking in a way that humans in my lifetime, are arguably the most intelligent they have ever been (Stephen Hawkins a fine example) yet war seems to be more rife than ever. You would think people would learn from their mistakes."

Arguably more intelligent, though most scientists will maintain that they build on the work of people who have gone before. It's easy to strive to the heavens when your predecessors have built the foundations.

Yet the fact is that most warfare is either caused or justified by ideology and belief. Thousands die because of the beliefs of others every day. This is why people like me dislike belief and prefer evidence and rationality as with that you don't need a war to compare work and discover which side is right.

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "That is a very good point Gary, but take a look back in history and our ancestors did in fact use nature for their inspiration. This then became personified into 'gods' of nature to explain the rain, thunder, sun etc. For example, the romans and egyptians had gods and goddesses for farming and rivers, the Vikings had gods to explain the weather...I really don't think it would have been possible for the world to develop as far as it has without any form of religion at some point?? "

Actually it would have easily happened, and less painfully.

The idea that lightening was sent by conscious decision of a god is a hypothesis, which is fine. That is not religion, until you believe you are correct.

Lightening is a good example, as eventually people observed that lightening tended to hit high points and conducted down lightening rods. This led to the new hypothesis that lightening was merely a consequence of natural forces, yet to be explained, but with predictable characteristics.

In a world without religion, the erroneous "god" hypothesis would be replaced by the new hypothesis and then eventually by the theory of electromagnetism. In our world belief and religion caused resistance to this idea that culminated in the invention of the lightening rod. One of the results of this resistance was the disaster at San Nazaro in Brescia. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church over two hundred thousand pounds of powder. In 1767, seventeen years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed upon it, it was struck by lightning, the powder in the vaults was exploded, one sixth of the entire city destroyed, and over three thousand lives were lost.

Hypothesising an answer (be it gods, demons or electrons) does not require belief. Accepting it without evidence and in fact refuting evidence against the hypothesis demands belief.

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "yes I suppose you are right in many cases! That opens the question, 'are we, in fact, becoming too smart for our own good?!' That is definately something I've spent much time pondering over recently...

Knowledge is only useful if you use it for something useful...? "

Actually I cannot think of a case where less knowledge would have been a good thing. Knowledge and communication build consensus. Ignorance and silence lead to conflict.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "One thing unites all these ideologies, that is the fact that they are usually built on belief. Belief in capitalism over socialism, belief in democracy instead of despotism, belief in the righteousness of your god."

Many have been fought over belief. Not all .... We also have things like lack of natural resources, greed, etc....

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Many have been fought over belief. Not all .... We also have things like lack of natural resources, greed, etc.... "

Yes, but I was talking about the ideological justifications for war, rather than the direct cause. Rarely will a leader say "I want that" or "We need oil". Instead they will cite patriotism, or a divine or historical right to a piece of land.

Without ideological justification it is a lot harder for leaders to take their people to war. After all how many people were easily convinced to support the invasion of Iraq after the events of 9/11 despite there being no link between the two?

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "hmmm...seems to me some people just want to pick my opinions apart!"

Or perhaps we have an honest disagreement with your position and the conclusions you have thus drawn from those assumptions?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Many have been fought over belief. Not all .... We also have things like lack of natural resources, greed, etc.... "

Yes, but I was talking about the ideological justifications for..."

Hmmm.... I'd have to think on this one for a bit ... and research. Different wars from history are popping into my head. I'm not sure the leaders always cited a belief vs. the need for more land and resources. I'm thinking the Khans, for example. I'm also thinking about Japan in the 1930's and 1940's.

I don't know. I mean, I can see your point. However .... I can think of a lot of times throughout history, whether wars or times of looting after disasters, when people have done truly terrible things ... not due to a belief ... but due to lack ... due to need.

So ....

Like I said, you have a point. But, wars, in general, haven't just been based on belief and haven't just been billed as wars over belief.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: the reason why some people (not just gay men) feel that it may be based on prejudice is that the reasoning doesn't add up.

But is does not have to add up. Sometimes the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Because some feel that there is prejudice does not mean that there is prejudice, or that prejudice is intended.

What is worse is that this bias will undoubtedly feed back on public perception. When people hear that gay men are banned from giving blood due to the risks, they will then be inclined to believe that gay men are inherently more infectious and even unhygienic.

That could be the case already. But I don’t agree with your ‘unhygienic’ comment. As I have already said, most people I would think, don’t have a view one way or the other, they accept what the authorities advise. As we do with most other things.

I think it is more prevalent than you recognise,

It may well be but that is not always a bad thing, is it? And anyway it’s inevitable, and even more so with so much multiculturalism.

The irony of the manufactured outrage about gay activists threatening religious freedom, when that supposed freedom is the right to deny others the freedom of their version of religion.

Manufactured outrage. I like that, I will use it myself. It would fit well with the above discussion. Manufactured outrage, suggesting prejudice, where there is none.

I have yet to hear a convincing merit from the anti-gay marriage.

There are reasons, reasons for both sides, but it is the ‘convincing’ bit that is the sticking point. I don’t wake up in the morning thinking the world would be a better place with/without gay marriage; in fact I don’t think about it at all, unless a debate or discussion takes place. But if we had a referendum in the UK I would have to vote ‘against‘. I have not yet been convinced otherwise.

I Which is why I compromise and enjoy the traditions of several culture's winter festivals while doing my best to ignore, and perhaps forgive, those that try to use it to impose their beliefs on me and my family.

That’s what I do, more or less.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "There are reasons, reasons for both sides, but it is the ‘convincing’ bit that is the sticking point. I don’t wake up in the morning thinking the world would be a better place with/without gay marriage; in fact I don’t think about it at all, unless a debate or discussion takes place. But if we had a referendum in the UK I would have to vote ‘against‘. I have not yet been convinced otherwise."

I find myself wondering ....

Why do you think you don't think about it?

What would convince you otherwise?


(Speaking for myself .... When I was in high school, we started talking more about sexuality and all things related to sex. That's the first time I remember hearing about or talking about homosexuality. No one in my family was openly gay. I wonder, now, about a couple .... They never "came out" ... so .... At any rate, when I first started hearing about it and talking about it, I was very against it. Not so against it that I discriminated against people because of it. I just didn't get it. I, personally, couldn't wrap my brain around being attracted to girls and wanting to be with girls. In addition, I'd, literally, never really heard about it before. It was this new concept for me, which left me not knowing how to feel about it, especially given my age and lack of experience with life. Further, I think a bit of peer pressure was involved. I remember a bunch of kids in my class being very against it. So .... That changed when I was in college. A bunch of us got a suite. One didn't come back our junior year and a girl on the waiting list was placed in our suite. The other girls became convinced that she was gay. They started shunning her. At the time, I was pretty wrapped up in classes and my boyfriend. One day I realized, all of a sudden, that the other girls were shunning her. What? They explained that she played softball, had short hair and didn't wear make-up. Therefore, she had to be gay. ! Long story, but ... to make it short .... My protective instincts kicked in. I started inviting this girl to meals, etc... with me ... my boyfriend and his friends. I invited the others, but they wouldn't come. I made it a point to include her, talk with her, etc.... In the end, the other girls came around. Also, she actually was gay. I found that out in the end. She was the first person I knew who openly admitted to being gay. And, .... She was just like anyone else. I don't say that in order to imply you aren't like anyone else if you happen to be homosexual. It's that I finally had an experience beyond high school boys saying how wrong it was ... how unnatural ... and other adjectives used to describe it. As I continued through my 20's and 30's and started working with people who are gay, getting to know them, their partners and their families, I learned more, including ideas involving civil unions and gay marriage. I heard arguments, like the argument Gary made yesterday, and I decided I was perfectly okay with civil unions and gay marriage. I went from being somewhat against homosexuality in high school to realizing, in my opinion, there's nothing weird or wrong with it ... to ... in my late 20's and 30's, being open to civil unions and gay marriage. For me, it took knowledge and logical arguments and more knowledge to change my mind. I think it is possible for people to change their opinions on this subject; I did. So, my question is ... Is your mind so set that nothing could convince you? Or .... What do you think might convince you?)

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "There are reasons, reasons for both sides, but it is the ‘convincing’ bit that is the sticking point. I don’t wake up in the morning thinking the world would be a better place with/wi..."

Hi Shannon,

You could change my mind. I like what you write, but don't always go along with it.

I am sending this from my mobile, but will give give a fuller reply to both your posts when I get back to my pc.

[Gryph]

Shannon wrote: "I find myself wondering ....

Why do you think you don't think about it?

What would convince you otherwise?"

Greetings Shannon :)

Once again, you've provided an example that, I understand, gets to the core of the issue for many--based on your personal experience.

Before I forget, I greatly enjoy reading your experiences. They remind me that this is not just a mental exercise in "What if ...", "Why ...", and (possibly) changing the world.

You wrote, in essence, that had initially not been exposed to gay people; when you were, you reached out to someone that had been shunned by others based on their perception / presumption of what they thought she was.

I think this perception / presumption, leading to a type of shunning, is a common reaction of many in the wider world.

Many humans tend to fear the unknown ... the "other"; others take the risk and investigate them. While this divergence is useful in nature (at its most basic primal level) it can often be taken to extremes. In the most extreme cases, those that fear the "other" will avoid, demonize, shun, or attempt to eradicate them. There's some interesting discussion based on recent discoveries about the "last Neanderthals" in Europe eventually dying out because they were unwilling to interact with the emerging Sapiens--thereby missing an opportunity to advance their own culture (there are also elements of brain size and the way it is assumed that they thought).

It can also be argued that the most extreme example of fearing the "other" has led to genocide, wars and other struggles.

Interestingly, on the opposite end those few that chose to investigate the other have generally enriched their own lives and eventually those of their original community. Exchange of ideas, technology and trade were some beneficial results. The most dire consequence, of course, was that the investigator would lose their life on the journey or at the hands of the "other" they had come to investigate ... but the latter is a result of the fear expressed by the "other" group directed at what they saw as interlopers.

You wrote, "Why do you think you don't think about it?"

I argue that many people don't embrace change ... at a level that exceeds their level of comfort. Fear of the unknown, misunderstanding the history of the concept (in this specific case the marriage contract), worry that it will upset the balance and somehow negatively effect the lives of those that don't agree with change are possible influences those positions.

Now for the most brief history of marriage in the Western World that I can easily summarize (those truly interested can google or buy some books)....

Pre-Roman societies had a number of ways of solemnizing the union between two (or more) persons of either gender: agreements between clan / family members that focused on the benefits of resource exchange--females were "given" in exchange for real resources or an increase in social status; unions were solemnized by social, religious, or political leaders in a number of ways including hand-fasting (lasting a term of one year and one day which could be permanently extended with a further ceremony), concubinage, or marriage; marriage was eventually assumed to be the "norm" and became the responsibility of the local secular leader; various religious entities declared that only marriages overseen and "blessed" by them were valid--based on the dogma of their religious tradition; eventually secular solemnization won out as the legal definition of marriage (some religions, such as RC, maintain that marriages are only recognized if they are solemnized by them ... hence divorce being a sin).

So where does that leave us?

Many, perhaps most, people don't want to think about the varied history of the marriage contract. Many assume that it has always been as it is--"It's working for me so why change it?". Others protest on religious grounds (real or imagined). Yet others, erroneously, come to the conclusion that someone else's choice of marriage will have a direct effect on their own or how they see it.

My earliest memory of wanting marriage was in primary school; at the time I framed it in a desire to spend many years with someone that I loved--granted "many years" at the time didn't extend beyond the age of 18 ... that seemed like an impossible age to achieve ... lol.

At no time since then has my desire of a life-partner wavered from being male. Not once. Never. This was long before any awareness of my sexuality came into play. It always bothered me that marriage to the man I loved was an impossibility but I held out hope that this would change in my lifetime. There were times when this hope effected my choice of dating partners based on their "meh" attitude towards marriage--those relationships had a fairly short shelf life.

My family, as I define it, has always supported my desire for marriage and shared my dislike and disappointment that this was an "impossible dream". They were equally as overjoyed when the dream became a reality in Canada. They were all there when I finally married in July of this year--parents of my husband and myself, heterosexual married couples, gay men and women, gay partners that were contemplating their own marriage, same-sex married couples, and single heterosexual women and men that weren't in the least worried about their own married futures.

They don't fear the "other", they don't see otherness in this circumstance, they embrace the underlying desire of getting married. I can only hope that they and their children are the future of society and that this lack of fear reduces the perception of "others" that exist in our society.

[[deleted user]]

C-Cose wrote: "Many humans tend to fear the unknown ... the "other"; others take the risk and investigate them. "

Indeed, I think that was the crux of the matter for me and might be for others.

I remembered something after I posted to cHriS. We had this huge discussion about homosexuality in our psychology or sociology class our senior year. At least ... I think it was our senior year. I agreed with the boys. I said it was, I cringe at this, unnatural. I didn't think it was right. No.

What I remembered was how totally and completely shocked our teacher was by my answer and attitude. The teacher challenged me in class. She kept me after class. I have this memory of her, that I haven't thought about for years, looking at me as if I'd grown three heads and fangs. She said something along the lines of ....

You always stick up for everyone. You're so accepting. Of everyone! Of all the students to make this argument, I'd never have believed you would.

I remember being stunned.

Then, she asked what made this different. I'd fight to my last breath for people of different races, religions, levels of intellect, ... people living in poverty. On and on .... What would possess me to stand up for everyone else but not people who happen to be homosexual? At that point, she told me she really wanted me to think this through.

I don't think I ever did. When what happened in college regarding our suite mate, I wasn't thinking about this incident in high school or about my teacher's shock and questions.

I thought about it today, though ... when the memory hit me.

What the hellfire was wrong with me? I mean, truly, I wasn't the type of kid to think about others being "other" .... I just really wasn't. It wasn't even apart of my makeup ... in any way, shape or form. Yet.... In this one instance .... I mean, I'd even "fight" for people who were different in middle school, regardless of not blending with the crowd and being looked down upon. This was who I was.... Yet.... When it came to talk of homosexuality in high school, no ... it was wrong.

It's hard for me to go back in my head and memory and figure out all the in's and out's of the situation. I mean, like I said, I think peer pressure played a role. But, that's not exactly right. It's more that ... I didn't know a ton about sex and sexuality, frankly. I was pretty sheltered. My parents were strict and the boys older-brothered me to the point of ridiculousness. So, when the boys came out against it, as strongly as they did, I figured they knew something I didn't. I think. The other thing that comes to mind .... I'm not sure that I can put this in words.... Clearly, it was a new concept and I knew next to nothing about it. When it came to race, I could see race. Different colors. So what? People came in different colors. Religion. There were different religions and different people picked a religion or not ... often based on their culture, etc.... I don't think, maybe, that I could figure out how a boy ... who was born a boy and looked like a boy ... and a girl, etc... would have different feelings about attraction. Does that make sense? It's like ... I was sitting in a room with boys ... all boys ... and girls ... all girls ... and ... the were the same. I wonder if that's what I was thinking. Boys are boys and girls are girls. All boys are the same. All girls are the same. Wouldn't it stand to reason that boys being boys would like girls and girls being girls would like boys? Clearly, if that's what was in my mind, it was very simplistic and ... wrong. I get it now!

But, then ... for me, I think part of the problem was, in actuality, that I didn't view homosexuals as the "other" ... I viewed homosexuals as the same and couldn't get past the idea that they weren't.

I'm sure that sounds a bit weird, but I'm guessing that might have been at play. I'm also guessing that might have just been me. Many have the issue you discussed ... with the "other" ....

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "You could change my mind."

Hmmm.... I don't know cHriS. That's an interesting statement. It's had me thinking along all sorts of different lines ... all sorts of different things.

I don't know if I can change your mind or not. What I can do is share what changed my mind?

I wanted to say a little more ... about the story I shared this afternoon. I've been thinking a lot about it, on and off. Walking out of school, driving home from school, killing time before meeting a friend at Panera, now ....

I'll tell you what cuts me, truly cuts me, to this day. I wasn't there for people I cared about. It's not even like I went AWOL, remained silent or all of a sudden had to go to the restroom. I actually let them down.

You see, when we had that major discussion that day in class, I was sitting in a room of kids I'd grown up with. I'd gone to school with them since I was in the 2nd grade. That's a powerful thing, in my opinion. Growing up with a bunch of kids. I think you get to know one another in a really deep way. You also count on one another in a special way. And .... I'd always been, as our teacher said, someone who stood up for and fought for everyone. Always. Without exception.

Until that day ....

I could literally sit here and start bawling if I let myself. I'm thinking about the different kids who were in that class. Knowing what I know now, some of those kids had to be gay ... statistically. I wonder .... When the teacher brought up this topic, did she expect me to argue for the rights of others ... for homosexuals?

Worse .... When the boys who went off, saying the most horrible things, did those kids, kids who might have been gay, did those kids look at me that day? Did they look at me and think ... Shannon is going to say this is wrong. Shannon is going to stop this. She'll stand against this. Did they sit there ... waiting for me to say something? Waiting for me to tell the boys to stop...? Were they confused when I didn't? Then, my hand went up. Finally. When they saw that, did they sigh in relief? Did they think ... finally, ... someone is going to say I'm not wrong ... we're not wrong ... I'm not/we're not bad or unnatural or weird or .... Yes! Shannon's going to do it.

It cuts me, cHriS ... thinking one of the kids I grew up with and cared about and loved might have been counting on me to stand between them and something ugly ... at least stand beside them.

But, I didn't. I sat there and said it was wrong and unnatural. Anyone who would want that or do that was weird. I mean, ... totally gross! I'm pretty sure I said something like that. It was '87/'88. I said, "That's, like, totally gross!" all the time. However, that was usually in response to the boys burping while saying "fisherman" and eating with their mouths open.

It makes me sick inside. Ultimately, when I went along with the boys and said what I said, I wasn't just saying the act was wrong and weird. No. I'm pretty sure I was saying they were.... People who would want that ... the kids in that room.

Because, even if I didn't say that, the fact that I didn't fight for them, well, that said everything. Didn't it? Given who I was ... who I'd always been. The person who hadn't found anyone or a group she wouldn't fight to the death to protect ... decided, in that moment and on that day, that there was a group she wasn't willing to stand up for.

And ... What did that say? How must that have made them feel? Like they were less than nothing. I'm pretty sure that likely how they felt.

That's what it comes down to, for me. I'm not real willing to make people feel like they're less than nothing again.

It's a complicated mix; I'm not even sure I've figured out all of the parts and pieces of it. The why's of it.

Why did I change my mind? Increased knowledge. Yes. Getting to know people who admitted to being gay. Learning more about sex and sexuality. Thinking about things like marriage and what constitutes marriage and ....

But, ultimately, I think there's another aspect of it ....

The kids who were sitting in that room that day, the kids who were gay, .... They were just kids. They were the kids I grew up with. We went through all of the same things together ... good teachers, bad teachers, lost teeth, lost friendships .... While I didn't get it, being attracted to people of the same sex ... while I couldn't figure out how or why they'd be different and want something different .... I'm having a hard time finding the words. They were more than that. They were the kids I grew up with and cared about. They weren't ... homosexuals. They were "John" and "Jane" ... "Mary" and "Bill" .... It was for me to accept them for the individuals they were ... instead of labeling them as "homosexuals ... who are so weird, I mean, like gross" ... Even though I didn't call kids out and brand them as that ... saying that and believing it .... It's almost as if I was painting them as or branding them as ... things. Not "Bill" ... Bill who was so funny and who I could always count on to calm me down if I got stressed over a test. No. All of a sudden Bill wasn't Bill ... Bill was a homosexual, who was weird and gross. And...! That just cuts me ... because ... I'm pretty sure it cut them.

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that ... like everything else ... race, religion, etc.... it's not about the "thing" someone is ... it's about who someone is ....

It's about liking the same books or being able to make the best turkey sandwich ever .... It's about giving someone the "shirt off your back" or shoveling the elderly neighbor's drive or .... It's about all of those funny and quirky and loving and amazing things ... that go into making people who they are .... That's what matters to me.

So, for me, I look at sexuality and look at gay marriage and ....

Instead of seeing ... a thing ... as in a cause ... or a nameless and faceless group ... homosexuals ... I see people I know. I see a coworker and her partner ... I think about them ... jokes they've made, times my coworker made me laugh or helped me out or .... I see her face in my mind and think about the fact that she loves her partner and has been devoted to her for a decade or more and I think ... why ... why would I say ...

You're wrong. You're bad. Your acts are wrong and bad ... if not you yourself. You shouldn't be with the person you love. You shouldn't get married. No.

Why would I say that?

Because the church says I should? Because tradition says I should?

Shouldn't I think about that person ... who she is ... what makes her tick ... think about the fact that she's a person who I value and who has found love? Shouldn't I want that for her? Acceptance? Love? Shouldn't I support that?

Those are the things that went into my transformation in thinking ... and in the way I feel ... about this issue.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "That could be the case already. But I don’t agree with your ‘unhygienic’ comment. As I have already said, most people I would think, don’t have a view one way or the other, they accept what the authorities advise. As we do with most other things."

Well the unhygienic comment comes from comments like you made earlier like why didn't I inflate my infection risk guestimate nineteen fold and the idea that you could only think of malicious reasons why a gay man may want to give blood.

As I indicated the problem here is again perception and feeding into that perception. For example there still is a perception that gay men put children at risk of abuse, when there is no proven link or statistical bias in the abuse of children by straight or gay men.

cHriS wrote: "It [prejudice] may well be but that is not always a bad thing, is it? And anyway it’s inevitable, and even more so with so much multiculturalism."

It is always a bad thing. At its very best it skews perceptions and leads to making mistakes, and on average it is deeply divisive, a cause of violence, unrest and persecution.

So, no, it's never a good thing.

It is also not inevitable with multiculturalism, in fact quite the opposite. The difference is that without multiculturalism the majority to not directly witness prejudice, but those that do suffer greatly.

Multiculturalism allows us not only to accept different ideas and to re-examine our own, it also leads to economic and scientific success. The Greek city states, Rome, Baghdad in the 900-1100 era, all where powerhouses of learning, trade and prosperity. Almost all of them eventually fall to isolationism and often to ideological conformity that devastates their ability to advance and to succeed.

cHriS wrote: "Manufactured outrage. I like that, I will use it myself. It would fit well with the above discussion. Manufactured outrage, suggesting prejudice, where there is none."

You have used it yourself in arguments much earlier. You notice the difference in usage don't you? I said that it was manufactured outrage and then pointed out in detail the errors and deceptions in the arguments that they gave, even to the point of demonstrating that they were guilty of the very misdemeanor they were supposedly outraged at. You have simply claimed that their is nothing to be outraged at and failed to address the quite simple arguments that have been raised saying it seems like prejudice. Yet moments ago you said that prejudice can be a good thing, so which point are you in fact arguing. That it isn't prejudice, or that it doesn't matter if it's prejudice?

cHriS wrote: "There are reasons, reasons for both sides, but it is the ‘convincing’ bit that is the sticking point. I don’t wake up in the morning thinking the world would be a better place with/without gay marriage; in fact I don’t think about it at all, unless a debate or discussion takes place. But if we had a referendum in the UK I would have to vote ‘against‘. I have not yet been convinced otherwise."

So you have reasons that have convinced you to be against, though you admit that it has little to no impact on your life. What are these reasons? Why do you need to be convinced to let others be free to do what they want when you know it won't effect you?

cHriS wrote: "That’s what I do, more or less."

Good idea.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: I find myself wondering ....
Why do you think you don't think about it?
What would convince you otherwise?"

When I say I don't think about it, what I really mean is that it does not concern me, so it is not in the forefront of my thoughts. Like many other thing are not, as well.

I don’t agree with a lot of peoples views but I would fight /vote for them to be able to express those views.

I was interested to read your accounts Shannon and I hope I would react the same. My issue here is only with one word ‘marriage’.

Like debates about other issues there are reasons for and reasons against, and it’s the same with gay marriage. What would convince me? I don't know, but I am willing to be convinced; but I don't have to be convinced, and I guess you could change your mind. J

Like others, I have an issue with the use of the word ‘marriage‘, not the marriage itself; but you can’t split the two unless you call one something like a ‘civil partnership’, which in the UK we do.

I believe the word marriage signifies the union of one man and one woman with the intension of raising children. For me this has nothing to do with religion or being gay. In general, that’s how it’s been for hundreds of years and that how it should stay. Society is a worse place for children without the security of a father and mother and the ‘family’ unit. We have to many couples living together and not willing to commit to marriage, and two many single parents. Much of the non committal is due to finance and the single parent family is because one of the parents, usually the male, who has little interest in the child he made. Also the government we last had in power took away tax relief and other benefits for married couples in order not to discriminate. Another small example of pc.

That said, people are free not to marry if they want to and to father children and walk away from their responsibilities. And this will go on happening while the government lets it happen. I believe in the carrot rather than the stick approach. Give more benefits to married couples (including civil partnerships) and make marriage a better proposition than co habiting.

I am not objecting to ‘gay rights’, we are all equal but we are not the same and so we should not be trying to be the same, just for the sake of being the same. What about the phrase, ‘celebrate differences’, that one gets dragged out when it of benefit, so why not use it now.

As I said if I had to vote now, I would vote against, but I also know from reading posts here that gay marriage is legal in Canada, so I guess it’s only time before it happens here. Although I would vote against I don’t feel strongly enough to march against it. Maybe a compromise of letting Churches decide whether to offer gay marriage will have to be the way forward. Although that was not allowed, with regard to adoption agencies, so I don’t know.

Footnote: Am I against a gay couple adopting? I feel as though that could be the next question.

Answer, No. But I would like to see less babies and children needing to be adopted, so that the issue of gay couples adopting would not be a question that needs to be asked.

My assumption, if gay marriage are allowed then another word will be added no to the word marriage to signify the difference, for example true/real, just as we have ‘same sex’ now. Then we are back to square one.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Well the unhygienic comment comes from comments like you made earlier like why didn't I inflate my infection risk guestimate nineteen fold and the idea that you could only think of malicious reasons why a gay man may want to give blood"

I suggest you go back and re-read that comment and you will find that you have take it out of context.

It is also not inevitable with multiculturalism,
Then its not inevitable with anything.

manufactured outrage
This can be used in more than one context. But how do we really know if it is manufactured? We make a judgement from the tone of the debate.

You pointed out in detail the errors and deceptions in the arguments, thats fine, I assume the reader understands this and does not have to have to pointed out to them.

Why do you need to be convinced

Because it can sometimes seen arrogant, to assume one is always right.

[Gary]

Emma wrote: "Wouldn't even bother wasting your time discussing it as comments just get picked apart by people who just like to see stuff written by them on here i think! Why can't you just comment once and leave it at that?! idiots! "

Why not just comment once and not use subsequent comments to post passive aggressive posts protesting that your ideas have been taken seriously and discussed civilly, and not use posts to be insulting and offensive?

Hypocrisy and arrogance in one small package, how efficient of you.